portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

corporate dominance | government | political theory post-selection actions

RED V. BLUE; What does it bode for choice in America?

How will the Democratic party respond in future elections?
The United States are so conservative that the democratic party felt it had to serve up another Yale "skull and bones" graduate to appeal to the "middle". The biggest difference between the two candidates is their zip codes. Unfortunately, the Kerry choice was not far enough right to appeal to sothern and middle America and deliver a win so what's next? I suggest Jeb Bush as a democratic candidate in 2008 surly he will appeal to middle AmeriKa and will certainly satisfy the Democrat need for a win because it is clear that the victory is in name only. Get over it our country was hi-jacked a long time ago and things will necessarily become much worse before people are mobilized for real change. This election may be a harbringer of good things...creation from negation. America the great Pheonix. Burn it down.
Not far enough right, or not far enough left? 03.Nov.2004 10:25

Scrub scrub@corrupt.net

"The United States are so conservative that the democratic party felt it had to serve up another Yale "skull and bones" graduate to appeal to the "middle"...Unfortunately, the Kerry choice was not far enough right to appeal to sothern and middle America"

Or is it that the Democratic party failed to appeal to the 40% of eligible voters who *still* didn't even bother voting even with all the effort put into voter registration and GOTV? Perhaps it's time for the Democratic party to give up on the centrist approach and pick someone who actually offers clear ideas and progressive plans that benefit the people.

Kucinich 2008!

"Dumbass" candidate 03.Nov.2004 10:42


In order to do better in future elections, Democrats and third parties should look at what the majority of the American people seem to want in a candidate. This would be a candidate who seems stupid, talks in sound bites containing words of no more than two syllables, with a macho blustering attitude, a Bubba, someone they want to have a beer with, someone who tries to come off like one of the "common people" or a "regular guy", someone whose ideas are so simplistic as to be understandable at approximately the 3rd grade level, and never admits that they're wrong (since the sheeple seem to somehow equate this with strength and decisiveness). Do we have anyone who could project this sort of image, i.e., a big doofus? And oh yeah, they better wave the flag a lot, and mention God frequently, and pander to xenophobic jingoistic nationalism by saying stuff like "I'm SO PROUD to be an AMERICAN", "America is Number One" and this sort of crap that the public seems to eat up.

Problem is, I can't think of anyone on the left who's quite this ridiculous. I'm afraid not even Howard Stern or Eminem could do it. Willie Nelson might be able to pull off the "Bubba" part. The person should probably be a movie actor, TV star, or entertainment personality. Any ideas?

re: Scrub 03.Nov.2004 12:09

if only it were true

I wish I could agree with you Scrub, but I think that view point is hopelessly naive.

1st off 60% turn out is super high, few countries in the world have higher turn out -- a change of that sort would be crazily unprecedented and would require it take place in all of the plains and deep south states to have any effect on the national political scene. Sorry but I just don't see the tv heads and church nuts living in the middle of nowhere middle america waking up to Kucinich or whoever.

They could have voter for Nader this time or last and didn't.

I agree with the original poster -- if it wasn't obviously before it should be absolutely fucking crystal clear now: The white, christain right (with help from the neocons and the super rich anti-tax people who see how dumb bush is and don't care) is such a powerful minority in this country that even the best efforts (and it really was unprecedented: the voter drives, outreach, and unity of the liberals) is still weaker. They (or we if you consider yourself part of this establishment) have about as much power on national policy as France.

The right is so far insulated and brainwashed away from progressive that it would take generations, and major cultural shifts to change things.

I for one believe that we have only a few options:

1. Local power: resisting national government as much as humanely possible. With seccession as an ideal form (but let's remember in the Oregon is hyper politically divided too folks!)

2. Anything in our power to limit damage of the right wing and disrupt their efforts (lawsuits, sabatoge, civil disobedience).

3. Direct, offensive targetting of the power of the christain right (ideas anyone?)

It has never been so clear that "rallying our base" is totally ineffective in national politics, at least at the polls and "court of opinion". They don't give a fuck about our protest rallies whether its 5,000 or 5,000,000 or 50,000,000.

We must organize ourselves into lives of resistance (sustainable and autonomous communities) and attack their power head on. The day of "show them the way" and "outnumber them" stategies are over - the "them" in both of these strategies don't give a damn.

This country is in a (cold) civil war. "Peace" in this war will not be acheived until one side is soundly defeated. And unfortunately, we appear to be headed toward defeat!

... 03.Nov.2004 13:02


Look at Massachusetts. Look at most of the "Red States." See where the red states are (i.e. nowhere near New England). Look how BIG they are. Look how small Massachusetts is. Massachusetts is like one county in a Red State.

Just because people in Boston think somebody's qualified to be a Senator doesn't make him a national leader. In particular, getting elected senator from a state in New England is like getting elected to the local board of supervisors in some county in California. Being a county supervisor in California would not be enough to justify running somebody for president against the Republican Nazi terror machine.

The Democrats need to pull their heads outta their butts, get over Jack Kennedy forever, and stop running local politicians from New England like Dukakis, Dean and Kerry as if they're credible challengers out in America.

Dumbasses. Ick.

The real reason 03.Nov.2004 13:03


The real reason for the outcome was because the sheeple knew Bush. Kerry didn't make a compelling case for change because his approach was "we need to do this..." and "we need to do that..." without ever offering a vision of how we would do "this" or "that" and what America would look like if we did "this" or "that". Then he chose to let Bush define the issues and tried to out-Bush Bush. Those of you who are old enough may be experiencing Deja Vu if you remember Nixon. He won just enough rope to hang himself in his second term. Bush very likely will do the same. In the meantime, we need to resist the right at every turn, push back hard at every chance, and search out a candidate for the next time that actually has a vision and who can communicate that vision in an effective way without getting dragged to the right in the process.

comments 03.Nov.2004 13:58


movie star lefties, Woody Harrelson might come back to the U.S. He's living in exile in Britain. So is Depp. (sign of times where the lefties go in growing fascism--if they have money--away not to help out!)

Even then, the issue is getting rid of the voting machines for all parties are beholden to the payoffs of the votescam.

A graphic error 03.Nov.2004 15:32

Hal E. Burton

Mr. ---

This is one of the most clever of the propaganda devices being used. Land mass doesn't vote. Nor are the states genuinely blue or red (they're all bluish or reddish).

Population centers in the NE are huge compared to those in Wyoming, for example. Your point regarding who to represent the left is valid, and likewise the electoral votes are very non-democratic being awarded like senate votes -- disproportionately.

Do a google for metro retro which has done a tidy contrast between the two Americas. Surprised, I was, to find out that the "rugged individualist" red states are net federal tax sucks while the blue states get less than they pay in. (Yet one more reason. . .)

the subsidy scandal 03.Nov.2004 21:00


Tax perk supports of rugged (environmentally destructive subsidized) individuals are rather hypocritical.You may be interested in this book--the first one (it claims) to put in laymen's language lots of abstruse academic and international writings about subsidies and their very environmentally degradative economic effects--and their political entrenchment:

The Subsidy Scandal:
The Subsidy Scandal: How Your Government Wastes Your Money to Wreck Your Environment by Charlie Pye-Smith